Legal Opinion
ARLANDSON v. Hartz Mountain Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided May 26, 2011No. Civ. 10-1050PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Hartz Mountain Corporation (“Hartz”), Sergeant’s Pet Care Products (“Sergeant’s”), and Summit Yetpharm, LLC’s (“Summit”) motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2). There was no oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motions to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) brings a putative class action on behalf of themselves and other…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Maniscalco v. Brother International (USA) Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2014
- Francis E. Parker Memorial Home, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific LLCDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2013
- Montich v. Miele USA, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2012
- Gray v. BMW of North America, LLCDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2014
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.